The Sikhs have been called by many names over the centuries since the time of the parkash of its founder Guru Nanak Dev ji. The historical scriptures of the 17th and 18th centuries have enough references to tell us how the Sikhs were seen, or named, in those times. The words Sehajdhari and Khalsa have been used in detail, except Khulase, in books.
The Western ‘scholars’ have done their best to label the Sikhs to divide them, and to create a confusion when it comes to the Sikh history and identity. If not the ‘scholars’, then the Britishers before and after the annexation of Punjab, before India’s independence, have severely damaged the Sikh unity in terms of their unification based on their beliefs by labelling them as the Sikhs of Guru Nanak Dev ji and Sikhs of Guru Gobind Singh ji. This differentiation has misled to define the word Sikh.
I think it is utmost important to comprehend the meaning of the word Sikh before expounding the other definitions.
Sikh
Who is a Sikh? Is there any rigid lines of demarcations that make the Sikhs different from other religions or sects of those times? Or is it a part of some other religion, or, perhaps, an amalgamation of religions?
The definition of a Sikh is well-defined in the writings of the Sikh Gurus, Bhai Gurdas ji’s work, and historical scriptures. They, however, have been overlooked to make the Sikhs indistinguishable among other practices. The lead role in this is the work of some professors at the universities and anti-Sikh organizations. Sikhs and the non-Sikhs, who have ample knowledge about the religion, have stated it numerous times who the Sikhs are, and why and how they’re different from other religious people.
Bhai Gurdas ji’s work is in very detail when it comes to defining a Sikh/Gursikh. He outlines numerous features of a Gursikh and his relationship to the Guru. This is a major work of the Guru Period where a Sikh is giving the everyday life of Sikhs. He doesn’t stop there but expounds on the Sikh Philosophy as defined in Guru Granth Sahib. There are numerous dos and don’ts in the vaars as well as in kabitts. Defining Sikh will take so much time if we have to go down on the path of rules as defined by the Gurus.
Is there any other method that can help us to have a general definition of Sikh?
One is to have a literal translation of the word: shishya, which means a follower or learner or student. That definition is too generic for our purpose because all religions can have a say that they’re learning from their gurus and prophets. That generalization removes all the boundaries that should exist to make a differentiation between the different belief systems. This definition kills the uniqueness of religions.
The other definition is a simpler one. Sikh is a person who follows the Sikh Gurus. Not one, not two, but all the Gurus in human form and their writings/teachings. This definition covers all the dos and don’ts in the Sikh Religion. This is the root of the definition of a Sikh. This, we can further divide with a list of rules for the internal and external part of the body. This definition has been accepted by all the Sikh Groups around the globe that the Gurus are the central part of the Sikh Life; if the Sikh loses his focus, he can’t be called a Sikh.
That being said, the writers have tried to engage the readers in the trifles of how the Nanakpanthis were the Sikhs of Guru Nanak, means they followed only Guru Nanak Dev ji. Or to some extent, the other Gurus but Guru Gobind Singh ji. This has been thoroughly discussed in Sikh Ik Vakhra Dharam. There is no word for those people who follow only one Sikh Guru. There were followers of the Sikh Gurus’ sons who tried to take the gurtagaddi with force or deceit, one even tried to kill the Guru; their followers are known with the person’s name that they followed, but it wasn’t in the case of the Sikh Gurus.
This is very unfortunate that the professors in the prestigious universities have maligned the Sikh History with their nefarious means to redefine Sikh. They randomly pick the most ignored writing pieces in the historical scriptures to shape their narrative that how it was deliberately missed by the ‘modern’ Sikh. The truth of the matter is the Sikh scholars validate any historical data based on the writing of the Sikh Gurus, if the data is philosophical in nature.
Sehajdhari Sikhs
Sehajdhari Sikhs are the Sikhs who aren’t baptised but believe in the ceremony of Amrit Chhakna and follow all the Sikh Gurus. What Sehajdhari Sikhs aren’t is:
1. The Sikhs who believe only in Guru Nanak Dev ji.
2. The Sikhs who don’t believe in the rules and regulations of Guru Gobind Singh ji.
3. The Sikhs who have attained the stage of Sehaj in the spiritual realm.
The last point is the latest invention of a professor who suggests that Sehajdhari isn’t a person who believes in Amrit Chhakna but hasn’t taken it, but the person who has reached the stage of contentment (Sehaj Avastha). This definition can be applied to the non-Sehajdhari Sikhs as well, if true. But history doesn’t allow that. The Guru didn’t imply that this particular Sehaj could be attained by a certain set of people at a certain point of time. The words of the Guru are universal. An Amritdhari Sikh can also attain Sehaj, and in that regard he will be called a Sehajdhari Sikh, if history permits. The fact of the matter is there is no evidence to support the claim that those who have attained the Sehaj Avastha are called Sehajdhari. Only the conjectures are available for our study, not evidence.
However, there is evidence available in Bhagatratnavli[1] under the title Vajbul Araz[2] that the Guru was asking the Sehajdharis to follow the path of Khalsa. Vajbul Araz is a Q&A between the Sikhs and Guru Gobind Singh ji. This has been mentioned by Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha[3] and Professor Pyara Singh Padam[4] in their books. There are a total of 10 questions, which the Sikhs asked the Guru to answer; some of these are mentioned by Kesar Singh Chhibbar[5] also for musaddi (ਮੁਸੱਦੀ) Sikhs (those who work in the government offices.) From the questions, it seems like the people adopted Sikhi recently and didn’t know much about Sikhi yet, but they learned about the Khalsa. The reason being they said the Sikhs (Khalsa) asked to read Anand at the marriage ceremony. This rule has been in place since the time of the fourth Sikh Guru, as the laavan were written by him. They talked about the sharaad as well, which the earlier Sikh Guru had already shunned.
Nevertheless, the account of these Sikhs is intriguing. The objective of the Q&A seems like the Guru wanted the Sehajdharis to follow the suite of the Khalsa. In many answers, it’s clear the rules were of the Khalsa. I am not implying some of them weren’t there. What I am pointing at is the literature of the 18th century confirms that some rules were given by the tenth Sikh Guru to the Khalsa, and on many accounts this information is same. Let’s look at some of them.
1. Don’t wear janeu (holy thread of Hindus).
2. Don’t do bhaddan (cut hair on the death ceremony).
3. Don’t interact with the followers of Dhirmal, Ramrai, Meene, Masand, and Sirgum.
4. Tankhah (penance according to the Sikh Faith) for the wrongdoings.
All these rules were mentioned by almost all the writers of the 18th century who wrote about Guru Gobind Singh ji that at the time of the creation of the Khalsa these rules were given.
The third and fourth rules should be carefully examined because they were given to the Khalsa. But in Vajbul Araz the Guru asked Sehajdhari too to follow these rules. For this reason, the definition that the Sehajdhari are the Sikhs who’re slowly adopting the rules of the Khalsa is correct. Furthermore, Guru Gobind Singh ji asked the Hill Kings to join the Khalsa[6] to fight against the Mughals. It however doesn’t imply the Khalsa was created to only fight against the Mughals, as some people suggest that the 5Ks are of no importance these days[7]. The Khalsa was a new ceremony to join Sikhism; earlier had been charan-pahul.
Khulase Sikhs
Khulase Sikhs might be a new term for many people. This word appeared in the work of an English writer, George Forster[8]. According to him the Sikhs are divided into two sects: Khalsa and Khulaasah[9]. This is like calling the Sikhs either Sehajdhari or Amritdhari/Khalsa these days. The new writers have taken the liberty to describe the Sehajdhari as Khulasa Sikhs. Second is he called Korah Mall a member of the Khulaasah sect[10]. Here, it might be concluded that Khulasah (Khulaasah, in terms of Forster) actually means Sehajdhari. Forster’s work is usually evoked by those who suggest that Sehajdhari used to trim their beard and head hair because he explicitly mentioned it in his work[11].
We shall see if Sehajdhari are same as Khulasah, which term originated first, or if there’re any differences between the two.
Forster made a remark that the Sikhs are deviated[12] from the teachings of Guru Nanak Dev ji. This he made about Khulasa Sikhs, or those who didn’t take amrit, if we consider Khulasa and Sehajdhari to be the same, as we would see a similar story in Shri Sobha Granth.
The article indeed of the admission of proselytes amongst the Sicques, has caused an essential deviation from the Hindoo system, and apparently levelled those barriers which were constructed by Brimha[13], for the arrangement of the different ranks and professions of his people. Yet this indiscriminate admission, by the qualifications which have been adopted, do not widely infringe on the customs and prejudices of those Hindoos who have embraced the faith of the Sicques. They still preserve the distinctions which originally marked their sects, and perform many of the ancient ceremonies of their nation. They form matrimonial connections only in their own tribes, and adhere implicitly to the rules prescribed by the Hindoo law, in the choice and preparation of their food.[14]
But so strong is yet the adherence of the Sicques who have been converted from the Hindoo tribes, to the ancient customs of their country, that many of their women are seen ascending the funeral pile; nor are they ever induced to enter a second time into the connubial state[15].
Did the terms (Sehajdhari and Khulasa) get mixed over a period of time? Or one term is the original term and other a new one? Sehajdhari word is commonly used among the Rehatnaamas of several Sikhs. This, if considered the date of their writing as confirmed by the scholars, by ignoring they’re written during the time period of Guru Gobind Singh ji, shows the term Sehajdhari was in use before Forster’s work. But there is one incident described in Shri Gur Sobha about the word Khulasa that should have our focus.
According to Shri Gur Sobha[16], after the creation of the Khalsa, some Sikhs arrived in Delhi and told the other Sikhs about what happened in Anandpur Sahib. They gave the amrit to the Sikhs who came to the Gurudwara. But the Khatri and Brahmins raised questions about the rules and thought how a Brahmin would live without bhaddan (cutting hair). The old tradition of their families couldn’t be forgotten easily, they said; this set of people should be the one that Forster talked in his work. Some were even so delusional that they said the Guru didn’t give these rules, that these Sikhs (Khalsa) just made them up. They said if something came in writing from the Guru, then only these rules should be followed.
One day a Khatri was sitting. He was asked to leave and called sirgum (ਸਿਰਗੁੰਮ). The guy informed another person, who might be Khalsa, about what happened. He told the first to have peace, wait for few days, and let him eat at his house. He also said that you’re known in the city; people would help us out. When the second guy returned in the sangat, he was questioned that why he let him eat in his house. He beseeched to forgive him. The sangat agreed to forgive him but asked not to engage with him anymore.
It seems like the Khalsa Sikhs went to the Brahmins and Khatris, and the Khalsa got to know about it. Khalsa asked them to leave the sangat along with their associates. They all gathered in a house and devised a plan. Thought they had to live in the world, why leave the Khatris and Brahmins. They made a plan to call the whole sangat. A person was sent in the city to disseminate about the gathering at Darapur.
It was the newly adopted members of the Khalsa (Khatris earlier) who said if the order came from the Guru, show to them. Until the same comes from the Guru, get together, and don’t do anything whatever is said by the other Sikhs (Khalsa.) ‘Whatever has been done by the ancestors, should be done by us.’ Some agreed. Others said there’s no Rehat/rules and we wouldn’t believe anything.
The similar incident in mentioned in Bansavlinama[17] that some Sikhs came to the Mukte (Khalsa?) that the rules they talked about were hard to follow. The ceremonies of marriages were held according to the earlier tradition i.e. a Khatri should marry into a Khatri cast, a Brahmin into Brahmin, etc., how the four castes could be merged into one! They even asked the Mukte that the rules they’d been propagating if they were given by the Guru.
These people, who denied the rules of the Guru, who followed what they had been following based on their ancestor’s beliefs, not Guru’s, who challenged the rules of the Guru, became Khulase[18]. They were not the Sikhs who we call the Sehajdhari Sikhs, because they never denied the Guru. These set of people might have been new into Sikhi, not more than one generation of following Sikhi, a bit here and there, not complete though. That is why they were so attached to their old tradition and paternal rituals that they denied the teachings of the Guru. They were Tankhaiye.
The word Khulasa thus means someone who has left the rules of the religion[19]. According to Forster, though, Khulasa is same as Khalsa, meaning pure or genuine[20]. On the other hand, Sehajdhari in both the ways – first the one who has attained Sehaj, this translation is inappropriate and interpolated; second, who’s moving towards the Khalsa – doesn’t imply the same definition.
This set of people has been present at the time of the creation of the Khalsa Panth also; they challenged the Guru there as well.
The newswriter, when forwarding this proclamation to his master, submitted his own report: 'When the Guru had thus addressed the crowd, several Brahmans and Khatris stood up, and said that they accepted the religion of Guru Nanak and of the other Gurus. Others, on the contrary, said that they would never accept any religion which was opposed to the teaching of the Veds and the Shastars, and that they would not renounce at the bidding of a boy the ancient faith which had descended to them from their ancestors. Thus, though several refused to accept the Guru's religion, about twenty thousand men stood up and promised to obey him, as they had the fullest faith in his divine mission[21].'
Shri Gur Sobha calls those people without rules. There is no word as Khulase Sikh in the work of the poet, but it shows the certainty that some people rejected the rules of the Guru. These set of people must be the Khulasa Sikhs of Forster. It is also possible, though, that the words Sehajdhari and Khulasa got mixed somehow. Vajbul Araz and other Rehatnaame show Sehajdhari as a Sikh who follows the Guru; on the other hand, Khulasa, with its literal translation, means the person who’s left the rules of the religion.
If we consider for a moment that Khulasa Sikhs are same as Sehajdhari Sikhs, it doesn’t imply that the Khulasa Sikhs used to cut their hair. There’re chances, however, that some of them did. Like in these times, if a person comes in the hub of Sikhs, Punjab, and sees a bunch of turbaned people drinking, would say the Sikhs drink. The Sikhs that Forster met/heard of might have been from the community who didn’t believe in the rules of all the Gurus, like Sindhi people. There are many communities in the world who say they follow Guru Nanak Dev ji. One more point to be noted here is Forster said that the last Guru asked the followers of Guru Nanak Dev ji to grow their hair[22]. In a way, the Sehajdhari Sikhs were also said to grow hair by Guru Gobind Singh ji; although in Bhai Mani Singh’s Janamsakhi, there comes a story where it’s said to grow hair, so saying it happened only at the time of the creation of the Khalsa is wrong. To distinguish Sikhs from the Hindus, the order was passed to ‘compel’ the Hindus to cut their hair.
It’s also possible that Forster’s Khulasah Sikhs could have been those Sikhs also who cut their hair to save themselves from the prosecution of the Mughals, when a reward has been put on every Sikh’s head. Or who thought it’s a tough Code of Conduct, and they couldn’t follow it anymore, so moved back to their old religion; the definition of Khulasa in Forster’s work confirms this because he called both Khalsa and Khulasa pure. Khulasa Sikhs might have been Khalsa earlier, later left the rules.
Those who still adhered to the tenets of Nanock, either fled into the mountains at the head of the Punjab, or cut off their hair, and exteriorly renounced the profession of their religion[23].
Some might have done it, without knowing the importance of the hair in Sikhism, but doesn’t mean everyone who stayed back in the plain lands cut their hair. Bhai Taru Singh’s martyrdom is the prime example of this.
Throughout the work of Forster, nowhere it appears that Sehajdhari/Khulasa always used to cut their hair. And renunciation of the religion is similar to Shri Gur Sobha. There are a lot of different ways in which the word Khulasa can be interpreted if we read Forster’s work carefully. Choosing one line and ignoring the whole chapter on Sikhism from his work is mischievous.
Khalsa Sikhs
The word Khalsa has been misunderstood by many writers. And they brought wrong conclusions to the table to define why the Khalsa was revealed by the tenth Sikh Guru. Misinterpretation of the word changes the Sikhs into the Sikhs of Guru Gobind Singh ji by some European and Western writers. Throughout the Sikh History, no attempt was made by Sikhs to define the Khalsa as the Sikhs of only Guru Gobind Singh ji by any means. It was the limited understanding of the Sikh Philosophy and Sikh History of some writers to define the Sikhs differently.
Was the Khalsa created/revealed to protect only Hindus?
Or to India?
Or to militarize the Sikhs to kill Muslims?
No.
And it is wrong on the part of the Western writers who write that the tenth Sikh Guru armed the Sikhs the very first time; or the Hindus who say it was revealed only to protect Hindus or India. These writers are ignorant of the Sikh History as well. It was the sixth Sikh Guru, Guru Hargobind Sahib ji, who armed the Sikhs and fought battles against the Mughals the very first time.
The Khalsa is the form of the Guru, the complete form of the Gursikh that is defined by the Sikh Gurus and Bhai Gurdas ji in their writings, because it was the last Guru who had to deliver the last message to complete the Sikhs forever, so that there wouldn’t be any need to have a human guru.
The Khalsa could make more Sikhs by initiating them into the Sikh fold, the same that was done by the Sikh Gurus with charan-pahul. It was not only for the name’s sake that the Khalsa was the Guru, but in complete practicality, and the temporal powers were also given to the Sikhs. The Guru became the servant, and the servants became the Guru. It had never been seen in the earlier centuries in any religion where the leader was calling his followers his Guru but Sikhism. This was started by Guru Nanak Dev ji when the gurtagaddi was given to Bhai Lehna ji, who became Guru Angad Dev ji. But that was only one person. Guru Gobind Singh ji gave the power to the members of the whole Khalsa when the time came.
The Khalsa was not just a group of warriors. Khalsa is a saint and a soldier. Khalsa is here to protect, to fight, to stand with oppressed, to look in the eye of the enemy, to call spade a spade, and to rule. Khalsa is the Gurmukh of Guru Nanak Dev ji, who is following the teachings of not one but all the Sikh Gurus. So the complete definition of Sikh is the definition of Khalsa. Khalsa is the last form of the Sikh, there couldn’t be anything that can be added because Khalsa is the Guru now. Khalsa is complete. Khalsa is a journey of 239 years where the Gurus raised the common, downtrodden, and lost souls upto their level, to obliterate all the boundaries of faith and superstition to make all the followers look the same with the same rights and rules.
In this way, the Khalsa became the definition of a Sikh. In the earlier days, Nanakpathis, Sehajdharis, and other names were given to the Sikhs. They walked on the path shown by the earlier Sikh Gurus. The Sikhs at the time of Guru Nanak Dev ji followed his teachings, the Sikhs at the time of Guru Angad Dev ji followed the first and second Sikh Gurus’ teachings, and so on, upto the tenth Sikh Guru when he revealed the Khalsa to the world. Khalsa is the fruit of the tree whose seed was sown by Guru Nanak Dev ji. Khalsa is the sword whose iron was given by Guru Nanak Dev ji and the next Gurus beat the iron to make it what the Khalsa is now.
There is no need to go through the analysis of the variety of opinions shown by the Western scholars about Sehajdhari and Amritdhari as it’s been discussed in Sikh Ik Vakhra Dharam, and it would be a waste of time anyway to go through their theories, where no holistic observation was made but picked few verses from here and there to misinterpret the Sikh Thought and Religion.
Another point is: is the Khalsa the default definition of Sikhs?
Like I said earlier, the Khalsa is the complete definition of Sikhs. There are many groups like Udasi, Nirmale, Sevapanthi, etc., they all are Sikhs. People can learn about Sikhism from any of these groups, but none should go against the rules of the Guru. Like some suggest that Sehajdhari are the Sikhs who believe in the first nine Sikh Gurus. If this definition is accepted, does it mean a Sehajdhari doesn’t believe in Guru Granth Sahib ji or call the Adi Granth as Guru Granth because these rules were given by Guru Gobind Singh ji? No. So, this definition of Sehajdhari becomes invalid.
How the Sikhs lived and went through their day-to-day activities in the past centuries changed over the years as the new rules were added by the Sikh Gurus. It is wrong to suggest the Khalsa’s definition of Sikhs can’t/shouldn’t be accepted as it was not how the Sikhs before 1699 lived. Agreed that Sikhs lived differently before 1699. This is a very childish approach and argument. It is like saying Sikhs used to live before Guru Arjan Dev ji but they didn’t have Adi Granth, so I don’t believe in that. It is absurd.
There are only two groups of people who have issues with this: first, who believe the Code of Conduct is very hard and they can’t live upto them, so they reject that; second, those who reject the distinct identity of Sikhs. The distinct identity of Sikhs did exist before 1699 and can be seen in Gurbani, Bhai Gurdas ji’s work, and Dabistan-e-Mazahib. The year 1699 was different because after the Khalsa was revealed it was said the Khalsa is different from Hinduism and Islam. And this thought is present in all the Gurbilases or any other work where the life of Guru Gobind Singh ji has been written in 18th century. The reason being, the Sikh was complete now.
Although the Janamsakhis have shown the Guru calling himself neither Hindu nor Muslim, and Waheguru asking Guru Nanak Dev ji to start a new path, but the 1699 event was different in terms of history because the temporal powers were given to the Sikhs. Now the Sikh was conspicuous among thousands of people. He had his own identity, which can segregate him from the other religions. It’s true that the Hindus used to keep their hair in the earlier centuries. So, keeping the hair wasn’t enough for the Sikhs. They needed more than that. Apart from their daily activities according to the Sikh Religion, they were given five articles (5Ks).
Many scholars have insisted the breaking of the Sikh Religion away from Hinduism, ignoring Islam as they want to overshadow Sikhi with Hinduism, happened in 1699. What they don’t realize is the written evidence available before the Revelation of the Khalsa back in 1699. It’s done on purpose by them, to limit the Sikh Faith within the boundaries of Hinduism. Once these writers are successful to create a line between the earlier nine Sikh Gurus and the tenth Sikh Guru, which they couldn’t do so far and will never be able to do, it will become very easy for them to paint the earlier Sikh Gurus and Sikhs as Hindus.
[1] Bhagatratnavli or Sikha di Bhagatmala has been published by Bhai Vir Singh ji. It consists of the commentary on the 11th Vaar of Bhai Gurdas ji. In Bhai Vir Singh’s edited work, the Sikhs upto to the sixth Sikh Gurus are mentioned, similar to what’s there in Bhai Gurdas ji’s work. However, there is an extended list of Sikhs of all the Sikh Gurus, and their stories are added in Bhagatratnavli in another version.
[2] ਵਜਬੁਲ ਅਰਜ਼
[3] Gurmat Martand, part 1, page 111
[4] Rehatnaame, page 166
[5] Bansavlinama dsa patshahia ka, Kesar Singh Chhibbar, edited by Prof Piara Singh Padam, 2005, page 157
[6] Gurbilas Patshahi Dasvi, Koer Singh, edited by Shamsher Singh Ashok, 1999, P 117-120
[7] Dayanand was of this opinion too. He used harsh words towards the Sikh Gurus and their teachings. He said the 5ks aren’t important these days. In his work, Satyarth Parkash, chapter 11, he mentioned about all the religions and sects that how they aren’t as good as his religion and philosophy. It is to be noted that Giani Ditt Singh had a debated with Swami Dayanand, and Dayanand lost it. It is available in the form a book named Swami Dayanand te mera sambaad
[8] A journey from Bengal to England, 1808 (originally published in 1798, but letter penned down on 1785)
[9] A journey from Bengal to England, 1808, Page 309
[10] A journey from Bengal to England, 1808, page 314
[11] A journey from Bengal to England, 1808, Page 310
[12] A journey from Bengal to England, 1808, Page 309
[13] Maybe a wrong spelling of Brahma. But it’s Mannu who wrote those rules.
[14] A journey from Bengal to England, 1808, Page 294
[15] A journey from Bengal to England, 1808, Page 309
[16] Gur Sobha, edited by Dr Ganda Singh, 1988, chapter 6, page 88
[17] Bansavlinama dsa patshahia ka, Kesar Singh Chhibbar, edited by Prof Piara Singh Padam, 2005, page 166-167
[18] ਰਹਤ ਤਿਆਗ ਤਿਨ ਨੇ ਕਰੀ ਭਏ ਖੁਲਾਸੇ ਸੋਇ ।
ਖਾਸ ਬਚਨ ਜਾਨੇ ਨਹੀਂ ਕਤਰੀ ਕਰੇ ਸੋ ਹੋਇ ।। 49 ।। 244 ।। - Gur Sobha, edited by Dr Ganda Singh, 1988, chapter 6, page 94
[19] Mahan Kosh, Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha
[20] A journey from Bengal to England, 1808, Page 309 (footnote)
[21] The Sikh Religion, volume V, 1909, Page 94
[22] A journey from Bengal to England, 1808, Page 305
[23] A journey from Bengal to England, 1808, Page 313
